The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Regional Officer of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) lacks the statutory competence to refuse certification of a film under Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in the absence of a valid delegation order under Section 7B. The Court set aside refusal orders dated 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 passed by the Regional Officer in respect of the Punjabi film "Chardikala," directing fresh consideration by the competent authority - the Chairperson, CBFC - after affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal, filed an application on 12.05.2026 before the Central Board of Film Certification seeking a certificate for public exhibition of the Punjabi film "Chardikala" under the priority scheme upon payment of enhanced fee. The application was processed by the Examining Committee and subsequently the Revising Committee, both of which recommended refusal of certification. The impugned orders communicating refusal were issued and signed by the Regional Officer, CBFC, on 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 respectively.
Key Facts
- The appellant submitted the certification application on 12.05.2026 for the film "Chardikala" (Punjabi) under the priority scheme
- The Examining Committee viewed the film and recommended refusal; the Regional Officer communicated this via order dated 26.05.2026 citing violation of guidelines under Section 5B(2) - specifically articles 2(xiii), 2(xiv), 2(xv), 2(xvii) - on grounds of "highly social-political sensitive theme, threaten to law and order and glorification of assassin may lead to breaking of societal norms"
- The appellant exercised the right of appeal to the Revising Committee
- The Revising Committee also recommended refusal; the Regional Officer communicated this via order dated 14.07.2026 citing the same guideline violations
- Both orders were signed by Arvind Kumar Jain, Regional Officer, stating "I am directed by the Board to inform you"
- The appellant challenged both orders before the High Court through FAO No. 4033 of 2026
Procedural History
- 12.05.2026: Application for certification filed by appellant before CBFC
- 26.05.2026: Examining Committee (EC) Order passed by Regional Officer refusing certification
- 14.07.2026: Revising Committee (RC) Order passed by Regional Officer refusing certification on appeal
- 25.08.2026: High Court directed respondents to disclose whether any delegation order under Section 7B existed; Union of India impleaded as Respondent No. 3
- 29.08.2026: Central Government issued delegation order under Section 7B delegating powers to Chairperson, CBFC (not Regional Officer) with immediate effect
- 06.09.2026: Regional Officer withdrew both impugned orders (EC Order dated 26.05.2026 and RC Order dated 14.07.2026) and directed fresh consideration by competent authority
- 07.09.2026: High Court pronounced judgment disposing of the appeal
The Parties' Positions
Appellant: Contended that the Regional Officer had no authority to pass final orders refusing certification under Section 4(2)(v) of the 1952 Act; only the Board or a validly delegated authority could do so. The Examining Committee and Revising Committee are merely recommendatory bodies.
Respondents (CBFC / Union of India): Initially defended the orders; subsequently, upon court's direction, placed on record the delegation order dated 29.08.2026. The Additional Solicitor General assured that the Examining Committee would be constituted by 10.09.2026 and the process would proceed per Rules 37 and 33(2) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the orders dated 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026, and a direction for grant of certification or fresh consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, was competent to pass final orders refusing certification under Section 4(2)(v) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in the absence of a valid delegation order under Section 7B of the Act, and whether the Examining Committee and Revising Committee could be treated as decision-making authorities.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior Advocate R.S. Rai argued that Section 4 of the 1952 Act expressly vests the power to sanction or refuse certification in the Board, with a mandatory hearing requirement. Section 7B(1) permits delegation only to the Chairman or any other member of the Board - not to a Regional Officer. Section 7B(2) allows delegation to a Regional Officer only for issuing provisional certificates, not for refusing certification. The impugned orders, passed by the Regional Officer on the recommendations of recommendatory committees, suffered from a fundamental want of jurisdiction.
For the Respondent
Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain and Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain initially defended the procedural regularity of the orders. However, upon the Court's query, the Union of India produced the delegation order dated 29.08.2026, which delegated powers to the Chairperson only. The ASG undertook to constitute the Examining Committee by 10.09.2026 and complete the process under the 2024 Rules.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. It held that Section 4(2) vests the power to refuse certification exclusively in the Board, subject to the proviso requiring an opportunity of hearing. Section 7B(1) empowers the Central Government to delegate the Board's powers to the Chairman or any other member of the Board - not to Regional Officers. Section 7B(2) separately permits delegation to Regional Officers only for the limited purpose of issuing provisional certificates.
"A perusal thereof clearly shows that it is only w.e.f. 29.08.2026 that the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 7B of the 1952 Act, has directed that the powers, authority and jurisdiction exercisable by the Board in relation to certification of films under Part II, including the power under Section 4, shall be exercisable by the Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification. Consequently, before 29.08.2026 there was no order of delegation in favour of the Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification, much less in favour of the Regional Officer to exercise power under Section 4 of the 1952 Act."
The Court further held that the Examining Committee and Revising Committee are recommendatory bodies under the 2024 Rules; their function is to examine the film and record opinions. The final decision must be taken by the Board or a validly delegated authority. The impugned orders, issued and signed by the Regional Officer without disclosing any decision by the Board or a competent delegate, were passed in clear contravention of Section 4.
The Court deprecated the delay of nearly four months caused by the lack of a competent authority, noting the appellant had applied under the priority scheme and suffered commercial prejudice. It observed that the jurisdictional defect came to light only after repeated judicial queries.
The Verdict
The appeal was disposed of in the following terms: (1) The impugned orders dated 26.05.2026 (Examining Committee) and 14.07.2026 (Revising Committee) passed by the Regional Officer stand withdrawn (as confirmed by the Regional Officer's order dated 06.09.2026); (2) The matter shall be considered afresh by the competent authority - the Chairperson, CBFC, to whom powers stand delegated vide order dated 29.08.2026 under Section 7B; (3) Before passing any order, the competent authority shall afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing in terms of the proviso to Section 4(2) read with the delegation order; (4) The report and relevant records before the Examining Committee or Revising Committee (as the case may be) shall be supplied to the appellant, save for the names of Committee members protected under Rule 23(6) of the 2024 Rules; (5) The Examining Committee shall be constituted by 10.09.2026, and the rest of the certification process shall be carried out in terms of Rule 37 read with Rule 33(2) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delegation Must Be Express And Specific
- Section 7B(1) delegation extends only to Chairman or Board members - not to Regional Officers. Practitioners must verify the existence and scope of a delegation order before accepting any final certification order from a Regional Officer.
- Section 7B(2) is a narrow exception limited to provisional certificates. It cannot be invoked to uphold a refusal of certification under Section 4(2)(v).
- Any final order refusing certification passed by an authority without valid delegation is void for want of jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
Recommendatory Committees Cannot Substitute Decision-Making Authority
- The Examining Committee and Revising Committee are purely recommendatory under the 2024 Rules. Their opinions do not constitute decisions.
- A final order must reflect an independent application of mind by the Board or its valid delegate. Orders merely communicating committee recommendations, signed by an unauthorized officer, are legally unsustainable.
- Practitioners should scrutinize whether the order discloses a decision by the competent authority or merely forwards a committee's view.
Procedural Safeguards Are Mandatory
- The proviso to Section 4(2) mandates a hearing before any adverse order. This right cannot be dispensed with.
- Where a jurisdictional defect is discovered mid-litigation, the Court may direct fresh consideration by the competent authority with full procedural compliance, including supply of relevant records (subject to protected disclosures).
- Timelines under the 2024 Rules are binding; delays caused by institutional failures (such as absence of delegation orders) are deprecated and may ground relief.
Practical Takeaways for Film Certification Practice
- Before filing a certification application, verify the current delegation order under Section 7B to identify the competent authority.
- If a refusal order is issued by a Regional Officer, challenge competence immediately - do not wait for the Revising Committee stage.
- In writ appeals, seek a direction for time-bound reconstitution of the Examining Committee and completion of the process under the prescribed Rules.
- Preserve the right to hearing at the fresh consideration stage; insist on supply of committee reports and records (minus protected member identities).
